26 



SCIENCE. 



[Vol. X. No. 232 



international copyright lies in the fact that the daily newspaper, 

 which sells for a couple of coppers, is no longer merely a bulletin of 

 the telegraphic news and market reports, but furnishes daily a 

 volume of reading-matter with which the bookseller must compete 

 sooner or later. Add to this (we can go on adding here for a long 

 time yet) that the articles in the newspapers and the periodicals of 

 more lasting value will surely be printed in book form ; and, if not of 

 permanent value, a very large percentage of them will arrive at the 

 same disposition by reason of the collective pride of the authors 

 (" By request of numerous friends who desire to see them in more 

 permanent form," is the stereotype here), — and the prospect for 

 more books than we need soon becomes bewildering. And these 

 books, too, are bound to be dilutions of other dilutions in combina- 

 tion ; for the original atom which is to be added, at the best can be 

 but small compared to the vast centuries of literature behind each 

 successive book. 



Now, in all this maze of things, the publisher is really in the same 

 position as the editor of the magazine. He can bring out the un- 

 tried manuscripts of his fellow-countrymen, and run the risk of 

 selling enough copies of the venture to grow rich therefrom ; or he 

 can take the English books which he knows will sell, which the 

 newspapers and periodicals of the world are advertising for him, 

 and run no risk. He avoids the expenses of proof-reading and cor- 

 rection by buying advance sheets ; and since he publishes for the 

 same reason that authors write, — to accumulate a competency, 

 and meanwhile to support himself until he does accumulate it, — 

 we can hardly blame him, because, already once in print, the 

 author or owner of the English book can deal with him on better 

 terms than the American author. 



In answering the question as to whether we really want an inter- 

 national copyright, I should like to consider it under two proposi- 

 tions ; namely, (i) whether our own authors need it, and (2) 

 whether the British authors need it (and, if yea to the latter, how 

 we can give it to them at all). In answering these questions, I 

 would like to premise, first, that personally I am in favor of an 

 international copyright with England ; that I am not only in favor 

 of, but some years ago labored hard to secure, one (at my own 

 expense), and contributed money to assist the labors of others in 

 the same direction. Nay, further, I once devised a plan by which 

 a case should be constructed, like the celebrated greenback case, 

 wherein an EngHsh citizen should write and publish a book in this 

 country, an American publisher pirate and print it, and the English- 

 man begin an action for the infringement and an accounting ; and 

 so go up to the Supreme Court of the United States on the question 

 whether the Constitution of the United States by its exact words, 

 or by any statute enacted by virtue of such exact words or grant of 

 power therein clothed, did forbid, or deny in this single instance, 

 the natural right which every man has to his own, — to his prop- 

 erty. And I may add (in self-defence, lest what I am led to say in 

 this paper may look as if I am of different mind now from what I 

 was then) that I believe the abstract act of printing for gain, without 

 license therefor, of literary matter one has not produced and which 

 belongs to another, is larceny, pure and simple, and therefore 

 without color of moral excuse. 



Let us examine the second question, as to the British author, 

 first. If an Englishman brings his horse to this country, it does not 

 become the less his horse. If I break in upon that Englishman's 

 stables and appropriate that horse, it is horse-stealing on my part ; 

 and if I use the horse so appropriated, and earn money by using it, 

 and present the Englishman with a portion of my winnings, I am 

 none the less a stealer of horses. Similarly, if a publisher takes an 

 Englishman's book without the Englishman's consent, and pub- 

 lishes it, he has appropriated what does not belong to him ; and if 

 the book so republished sell, and the publisher presents the Eng- 

 lishman with a portion of the proceeds of the sales (or with the en- 

 tire proceeds, for that matter), the fact that the publisher has ap- 

 propriated what does not belong to him, and so committed an 

 immoral act, is not affected in the least. But, unfortunately, it is 

 one of the accompaniments of the curse of Adam that nations must 

 legislate for their own people, and make treaties with each other on 

 only the one principle, the selfish principle, of expediency, — of what is 

 expedient to themselves and to their own people. Indeed, no attempt 

 has ever been made, so far as I am aware, to maintain nations on 



purely moral grounds. No nation that I am aware of, on being invaded 

 by a foreign foe, has said, " You are right, we are morally wrong, 

 therefore we will not fight you : take our nation, we have erred, and 

 deserve to lose our homes." And, to go a little further, no nation 

 that I am aware of has ever enacted laws for the benefit of citizens 

 of another nation, or even for the benefit of a certain class or guild, or 

 association of citizens of another nation, simply because it was mor- 

 ally right that such laws should be passed, or because the citizens of 

 that country, or class, or guild, or association thereof, had really a 

 moral right to something which the fact that they were not citizens 

 of the nation enacting the laws had theretofore withheld from them. 

 Could or would the British Parliament enact a law for the benefit 

 of American statesmen, or American lawyers, or American physi- 

 cians, without the comment that one man was as good as another, 

 and that if Parliament proposed to give American statesmen, or 

 lawyers, or physicians, equal rights with English subjects in Eng- 

 land, the law should be for the benefit of all Americans, whatever 

 the profession by which they earned their bread, not for a single 

 class thereof, since the Law should be no respecter of persons .' 

 Clearly, the English author can only petition the American Congress- 

 for a statute of Anglo-American international copyright on the 

 ground that he is a man, and that it is wrong to take his property 

 without his consent ; and the only answer to that statement will be, 

 that the laws of national expediency do not, p?-ima facie, permit a 

 nation to pass statutes to secure special justice to a special class of 

 aliens, although it is equally true that no civilized nation denies 

 equal justice, under its general laws, to any man by reason of his 

 ahenage. 



Second, so far as the American author is concerned, I apprehend 

 that one reason why Congress cannot pass a statute of Anglo- 

 American international copyright on the petition of American au- 

 thors is because Americans can not (or at least because they do not) 

 present a case, or at least a grievance, upon which Congress can act. 

 Legislatures in constitutional countries can no more enact statutes 

 than courts can find judgments or issue decrees, without a statement 

 of facts, positive and special : neither the Legislature nor the court 

 can act upon mere generalities. And generalities are all that our 

 American authors can present (or at least have so far presented) 

 to Congress. When any one, or one hundred, American authors 

 can show to Congress that anybody is being specially damaged by 

 the absence of such a statute as they pray for. then the time will 

 come for the showing to be legislated upon. Let the petition recite 

 that A is, and always has been, an American author ; that he is de- 

 pendent upon his trade or profession of authorship for his daily 

 bread ; that he cannot earn any money for his authorship unless he 

 can secure a publisher ; that he cannot secure a publisher, although 

 he has made every effort in good faith ; and that he is informed, 

 and believes, that the reason why he cannot secure a publisher 

 is because Congress has hitherto neglected or refused to pass 

 a statute enacting an Anglo-American international copyright. On 

 such a showing as that. Congress could act : could appoint a com- 

 mittee to inquire into the facts, and, if found as stated, report a bill 

 for the relief of A. But is it not the fact, that, while any number of 

 American authors are willing to sign a round-robin at any time 

 for an Anglo-American international copyright, no single author 

 has ever been known to come forward and make such a petition, or 

 show such a loss or grievance, anywhere or to anybody 1 



Or if the round-robin of American authors could join in a peti- 

 tion of another sort : Let A, B, C, and D respectfully show that they 

 are citizens of the United States ; that, by reason of the neglect or 

 failure of Congress to pass a statute enacting an Anglo-American 

 international copyright, there is a dearth of books, or magazines, or 

 other published matter in the United States ; and that by reason of 

 this dearth of books they cannot pursue their studies, or procure 

 reading-matter for themselves or their families ; that they are, by 

 reason of this state of things, suffering great loss and hardship, 

 etc., — there, again, would be a state of facts into which Congress 

 could inquire, and, if found bojia fide, could legislate. But I am 

 afraid that this last round-robin would have hardly a leg to stand 

 on, in the current year at least, from the fact that in the office of 

 the Librarian of Congress, the legal depository for copyrights, the 

 entries have footed up to 31,229, of which 4,676 were for bound 

 volumes, being an increase of 588 over any previous year, as I learn 



